Wednesday, March 14, 2007

The "gods [sic]" must be crazy.

This chapter is another failed attempt by Quinn to construct a convincing metaphor. If he was going to use the Adam and Eve story from a monotheistic tradition, he should never have told a story involving gods(plural). I wasn't confused, I just think this sounded like a story the author made up on the toilet while reading a hotel's Gideon Bible. He must never have thought about the implications. Despite using this new analogy and revisiting the failed aviator, this chapter still held some value. I think the image of the conflict between Caine and Able was quite fitting as a metaphor for the competition between the Takers and Leavers. Anyway, I'm unimpressed with the progression of this story. What was an interesting collection of revelations has slowly regressed into wishy washy folklore analogies and aimless story telling. I'm waiting for the world saving solutions this book has to offer that don't involve mass famine and neglecting the hungry. This book is obviously not timeless, many of it's assumptions are old truths. I'm pretty sure people are talking very seriously about family planning in the third world as I am writing this. For me it's not about increased food production and simultaneous increases in population or the reversal of this, it's about education against Quinn's brand of social Darwinism, the spread of compassion and the war against reproductive ignorance. If people alter their reality to reject Mother Culture, not just to follow the Law of Nature, but to take the third path, or environmental Golden Mean man can survive. We can't have it both ways, but there is an amazing compromise between Nature and Culture. How to to live? Ask Nature. Why to live? Ask Culture. From this point in history neither can truly be ignored. Dig it?

3 comments:

Scott said...

I hear your thoughts...
Be careful note t put your hopes and wishes into what you WANT this book to be...it will get you nowhere. A Person has you challege themselves if they are going to get anything out of this. They have to "live" with some of the things Quinn is talking about. Is one really right? Are one's opinions the final answer? If anyone knows me they know I get irritated when people don't challenge themselves. All too often people believe want they want too and never ask questions...this can be very dangerous. I am not saying that you are doing this Matt, but I want the group to be warely of making unneeded asumptions both on the part of the author and the reader. One question Matt; How do you know his take on the Genisis Story was made up on a whim, and not well thought out and researched?? Are theologains the only people that point to the bible with acurracy? As Quinn mentions, the bible has some historical implications (not absolutes) rather then it just being a "holy book." I am curious as to how you came upon the conclusion of it being a "mis-interpretation"??

mlinden said...

"??"?

Jonathan Pfeiffer said...

You're tantalizing me here, Matthew. An "amazing compromise between Nature and Culture"? I can't figure out what you think it is, but I want to know.

You suggest asking Nature to find out how to live. What if Nature says you should live with cancer--even when there's an available remedy? And how would we find out exactly what Nature's proscriptions are?